with such accurate models with surprising conclusions. this program is about one hour. >> host: patrick, your book couldn't be time to. -- couldn't be more timely. ..

to have more information than we do. the information we get from government is heavily filtered, late for our writing. is there a strategy you can ascribe from trusting those in authority to relying on our friends and our colleagues for information? >> i still think we should trust people in positions of authority during times of emergency. it is just the method of information dispersal at this moment in time is not nearly as efficient as it could become especially considering you're talking about a population carried around the television station and that is really the problem. what clued me onto how efficient it could be that conversation i

had with gordon jones who made an app called guardian watch. he was a former firefighter. these are to take your phone in a time of emergency and you're able to take a picture what you see inside to a central location that can be distributed across everybody who might be affected by the situation. and as a couple competitors right now. compare that to the way we do with emergency communications today, which is a lot of people all of a sudden turning to one information source that is relying on whatever data it can get to relay information from a distance. i mean, it is just fundamentally an efficient way to deal with giving everybody it the information they need to make a decision in that moment and that is because we are communicating and in that situation it is sort of an analog format. a bunch of people are talking to a central emergency surgery to

later and they are speaking not as speed at which we speak i'm not a centralized sort of information distributor is speaking back at a slow rate and information we know comes in a variety of different forms. not just spoken word. so you get much more information from a picture than you do from lake literal instruction. what we have the capacity to do now is a collect visual information in the times of emergency and also distribute information in times of emergency and really cut out the middleman, the person for the central agency in charge of codifying all the incoming data and representing a way that maybe helps people, but given the limitations of being taxed. so this is an example to me at how we've reached a really new and critical point, where we

create much more information in all that we do then we did previously and that changes the tools we have in decision-making. >> host: you talk about something called the internet of things. but is now? >> guest: the internet of things refers to will be female where we are embedding confrontational committees and i lift environment. some technologies disagree on this, but i personally consider the smartphones that we all carry around at this early 70% of the american population carries around to be a trademark example. we are becoming human sensors because we all carry around an extremely powerful computer in her pocket, but it also takes the form of different sensors that exist in the physical world around us that takes the form of radio frequency identification readers that we pass underneath when we access easy pass on the new jersey turnpike. it takes the form of weather sensors all around us.

certainly surveillance cameras that collect data and some that someone else. this is all part of basically the embedding of computers into a real-world. the idea comes from a guy named mark racer who were at xerox parc in the 80s and he envisioned a future where when you interacted with computers, it is very different from now where we sit down on the desk. retaken her hands and start creating data with seniors by taking it directly into the computer. instead he imagine a future where we interacted with computers passively all the time to our actions. and so, the presence of technology actually sort of retreated from our life and we didn't feel at the same way we do now. this is the future we are just now beginning to sort of walk into, because mahler, more powerful, less expensive. postcode now commies talk about issues of privacy and how one of

the answers to in a sense protecting our privacy is for us to get a hold of our data. i wonder with so much coming out in terms of how data aggregators like acxiom, pr wr collecting information, it is a commodity to then. they want to hold onto it. how do we make that transition to getting access and owning our data? >> well, it is a commodity they use, but also something we create. we are the point of origin for this data. so acxiom is a good example. axiom partners with your phone carrier, via verizon or at&t most likely. when you walk around coming to create information about where you are. locational data. vocational data speaks to a lot of different things about you.

if you're at a particular place and time you can be lumped in with a lot of other people that have that characteristic. axiom that connects to different companies that are trying to sell you stuff on the basis of who you are aware you are. privacy laws say they can't arcadio explicitly and specifically. can't use your name, so if the information your carrier to advance to axiom is his quote, unquote anonymize. that is sort of a nominal consideration, considering how easy it is to de-anonymize the information. it's only because they're trying to pay attention to the privacy law. not explicitly marketed to and exactly who you are, but they want this category tagging to be as specific as possible and they want to narrow down the smallest group of people possible to reach the specific advertising into that scale over and over again. it's weird and i hate it. having said that, you are the

plaintive origin for this data and there's lots of ways you can understand what you see, when they look at you. for one thing come you can download a couple different maps to sort of log your location and just take a look at your tv so that you understand in a way that is much more conscientious where you've been, where you went, what you did there and what that might say about you because you are a better judge of yourself than anybody else. this is nothing we been paying attention to. there are a number of apps you can use in services you can use to sort of understand where you fit among other people in terms of your demographic profile. most importantly, when you make a decision about what you want to buy, what you may buy or what you might not want to buy, just keep in mind all of those decisions can be remembered by someone somewhere and at some point it will get out to you, perhaps in the form of market.

so you might feel empowered by that. you might not feel empowered by that. if you remember the interaction where you are directly marketed to in our services you subscribe to that help you at that as well, then you taken a first step in detecting yourself for really coercive marketing the targets you based on context, based on where you are and what you're doing. >> i think until the revelations recently by edward snowden, many didn't realize the extent to which the government partners with private industry intellect being story in ways that we don't yet know really how they may use our data. do you think those revelations have contributed to raising awareness of some of the things you talk about in your book, how we can possibly use data to improve public safety, public health? pacifica development?

i'm not exactly sure what to make of edwards noted as a person and i'm not able really to comment on whether or not he should face charges. that is up to someone else. the revelation itself is good and sorted in favor of more people knowing more things, but more importantly, that sort of revolution is inevitable. that's the first point. for one very reason and that is this. we think of institutions having this data and haldane censored per minute advantage over all of us on the holding some sort of concrete leverage and not is not the case. this data is not like plutonium. you can put it in a box or put it in a reactor and derive use in that way. in order to use it, it has to get out of the longer you have it, the more likely it is to get out. that's what we saw with reticular late edward snowden. whether you think he's a hero or

villain or hero worship face prosecution for dylan set free because it's a first amendment issue, one thing is for and that is he's the most famous systems at the straighter that ever lived. he was a contractor for the government. he had a pretty innocuous job as a systems administrator and yet he was able to do two basically the nsa snooping we feel the nsa is doing to us. what do with flash to isolate the most important secrets of the entire world and that is the nature of this stuff. the more you collect, the more likely you are to reach more and more people that is what we've seen here. so yes, i think that these revelations have raised certainly alarms. they haven't really raised understanding. they are some of the things we spoken about. it's been revealed that nsa holds its stores a lot of metadata information, particularly metadata information on not only for its

citizens, which legally they are allowed to do into infinity. we forget this. they can watch any foreigner as much as they want, however much they please. whatever signals they can intercept, they are allowed to buy a ball, but u.s. citizens. we forget exactly what i just talked about, at&t, verizon, your carrier has all of this data. dave atta for a long time and use it to market you. why would we be more comfortable with the private company like at&t and verizon exclusively holding that data and the government speaks to you a somewhat irrational fear. we are afraid of being misidentified are afraid of becoming a false positive to government and falling under the lens of government surveillance and been accused of something we didn't do. the ironic thing is the more data you have, the more likely you are to cut down a false

positives. in fact, we're more likely to be identified as a potential customer of a product we may not actually want to but could be coerced into buying. that is the funny thing. we don't have private companies having this data as they just expressed about the government holding data because the responsibility hasn't been as conspicuous on the part of the private sector. >> host: so you are saying the more data out there and i guess that goes to the title of your book, "the naked future", there's less that i might be stigmatized for my political views and activities? >> guest: you would be less likely to be accused of something that you didn't do. now, you might be sticking for something you did do ms is a problem we have to start talking about right now. part of the reason i wrote this book is so people can have a tremendous opportunities at the

big data age presents, but also alert them to the fact that unless we start having a conversation about this stuff, all of those opportunities turn into threat and that is exactly what we just mentioned. so the future, more people knowing much more about your propensities is inevitable. the good news is they will be your actual propensities. >> host: because right now there is a lot of information misinformation. i myself would've checked about about the data.com and have factual errors about me. postcode contributed to a process wherein that was correct it. i didn't correct it because i didn't want more information. most people don't have the ability to go into other data aggregators and correct inaccuracies right now. castro no, no. and so this is another case in point. so right now, there is a program at airports called pre-check.

you sign up and give the government a little information about you and then you can bypass the minds and this information consists of criminal background history and a few other biographical features. a lot of people are talking about how sort of faces that sort of feels that we are pushing everyone to a stable normalize surveillance. but of course we are to have through the irs. so it is amazing the amount of data that the irs has compared to the amount of data at the nsa might have, telephone data on an individual compared to the amount of data and all of it is a little bit separated model that is it is accurate. when you look at all of it together, that is inevitable and it all becomes more accurate in the context of itself, all of that data and that is the process we see the layout right now where they said please calm with this data in in so doing

they revealed obvious to you what they had on you. that is part of the revelation process in who elected not to correct it, but eventually when lots of other people go correct their data, there's a higher chance of eventually they'll figure out there is an anomaly and they will have a better understanding. you've played a part now in knowing that. and so, that's really the future here we are looking at, this constant escalation of intelligence about who is going to do well, what they are going to do based on what i know i am going to do in the best opportunity we have for movie night in our favor is to become much smarter about herself right now. the great thing is we can actually do it. >> host: i want to talk about specifics because you have wonderful examples in a range of fields from education to even online dating and health care. you write that millions of people in this country get the flu every year or get flu shots and still get sick and the cdc, even on its own website admits

they can't predict with accuracy what strains of the flu are going to be germane. now, you talk about again sharing more and more information to more accurately predict what trends may happen. how do you envision a health care movement that serves senate doesn't discriminate against us so what if, for example, i share data and the shows i may have cancer that i am not denied health insurance. can we protect against? >> guest: yes, but we have to insist on it. for instance, this is information that we want everyone to have. we basically do want everyone to go when and get their genome screen. there's been a lot of controversy around this. in terms of science come in terms of broad science that helps everyone everywhere, the best thing you can do to help this cause is to win and pay the 23 feet and under senior genome and then it somewhere you can be

part of a large dataset. is this going to come back and be used to discriminate against in terms of health care? know because of an extremely for senator bob enacted in 2008 that prevents health insurance providers are discriminating on the basis of your genetics. and so, there is precedent for pre-legislative advance discrimination on the basis of data. but what we have to do is demand more laws like that and i think we can do it when we decide it's a fantastic public good for more people to contribute more data to things like curing disease. so when you make that case to the public that it's absolutely essential to increase the amount of data that we have in the research field and in order to treat the major diseases of the 21st century and that we can protect you from discriminatory harm, then i think you are going

to see this sort of movement that we want to have hop hopping tape place. there is a great organization by john wilbanks and he's a fantastic researcher. but his organization does is it is creating a framework in which people can contribute personal medical information in a way that protects them, but that also is useful to science and research. he's very interested in how to make sure that those protections are in place that allow this thing to happen because otherwise the benefits are borne collectively, but this is something we have to be really aware of. >> host: you talk about the overarching aim that right now the risks are shared very personally.

i found interesting one example and i'm not sure if this is reality yet, but you talked about an app that could say my friend jane has the flu right now and what might be the percentage are the champ but i am going to get it from jane were started to other people. can we do that yet? >> guest: the technology to do that rd xs and what we give two are found all the time. as part of my research i talked to a couple extremely intelligent researchers. added celiac at the university of rochester at the time i believe is now at google in a couple researchers at johns hopkins. but the researchers said is they take a dataset of 6,600,000 tweets, geo-tagged from here in new york and they analyzed and semantically to frame a computer program to know when someone must retain about how they were feeling, specifically how they

were feeling. it's actually a difficult problem computationally because we use terminology that suggestiveness all the time and figurative ways. i have deeper fever or i'm sick of justin bieber and those things seem like they should be the same thing. so you had to train the computer program to distinguish between figurative uses of illness and actually use of illness were nn based on >> host: today i'm feeling feverish. >> guest: bright. so while this strange nuances and then they looked at where people were, where they were going, they said they were going to be with and for how long. collocation is a big component and based on this, they were able to predict 18% of all the person-to-person flu transmissions that occurred between the people they were looking. so they predicted 18% of one person giving another person may flu amongst the group. that is amazing. that is tremendous resolution

and reconsider the variables that go to where we get the flu next. that number would be even higher if more people had participated and of course we had someone understand data on service for a transition where you touch a doorknob or you touch something to get the flu that way. >> host: the benefits of cores are many including economic. people don't have to miss as much time if they were to infect several other people in the office, businesses and nonprofit organizations i imagine would love to be able to use that. >> guest: right come exactly. this is a key reason why we have to the conversation. even though this is a tremendous capability in the person who's going to give you the flu should be regarded rightly as a superpower. no one yet has and that soon will be pretty widely distributed. the term super loses it's meaning of context. it's an amazing benefit that awaits all of us and yet we have

to have a big budget discussion about how that is implemented because what is going to show up on your phone is a probability distribution, the likelihood of getting the flu from somebody based on the amount of time you have with them, based on how long they seem to have been sick and that sort of thing. if you talk about managing not from the as, for instance, let's say a school principal and got a couple kids coming to school with a 20% chance of infecting 30 people. but it's not that high. you call their parents in say 20% is a little high. the school has a 10% threshold. what if you are one of the parents of the kids that's going to sit next to that other child. you call the school and say 20% is way too high. i buried my kid out of class and their 10%. why does my kid has to miss a day of class because the other kid will show up today with a cold? we have to have these discussions because otherwise it will turn into a nightmare and

that's a shame. it points to the fact that the problem is that with the technology. the problem is we are not as smart enough to know what to do with becoming that much more intelligent. postcode you think that the speed with which technology has advanced in the last three decades and with the ad then to the internet has meant policy has lapsed? >> a lot of different policies and context of information and how rapidly it is changing, we are tremendously clearly in the debates we are having right now around all of the nsa in all this telephone download because if you -- i think a lot of people in washington say this is a capability that we need to have been we promise we are not, but we don't feel like talking about it. that begins to change behavior in some remarkable ways in among

the behaviors that are changed, look around the world at all of the different other companies -- other governments that have taken money out of other firms that are being in silicon valley because they don't feel it is secure with the silicon valley. there is a big difference in the way internet service companies have interacted around this nsa compared to telephone companies. they have a much closer relationship than google or yahoo! and this is part of the reason somebody at the nsa felt it was important for the muscular program to engineer backdoors into google and yahoo!. >> host: been a technological way that law enforcement can get into their hardware. >> guest: it peaked at their data, looking at their network. that speaks exactly to this

point. google even before the program was revealed heavily pumped up and was very strong. tremendous steps to increase encryption, but it really speaks to the fact that if you have -- and now we're talking about the bill. there was data that existed on google, on yahoo!, things that were impenetrable and the governor was able to engineer into the government now having a conversation on c-span and that is the way information works. like all information technology works, it is cheaper and becomes more widely available. so the same way computers went from being the size of gymnasiums and you only had one that existed on university campus and five people got to use it to things that exist on my phone and 70% of the american population has one that's 100 times more powerful, and the same is true with the information that we create using computers in her scene that right now.

ultimately a night, it is going to be -- change the way we live for the better. >> host: when you talk about the close relationship between the telecommunications industry and the government, it is worth noting years ago when this came not about the warrantless wiretapping program under the bush administration, many groups sued, but found the government had given immunity to telecoms again the lawsuits. i think that will be changing. we are going to take a break. i'm really interested when we come back, you talk about like whether in addition to health and education, important fields where you posit that more information in the future will benefit all of us. so they both take a short break and be right back.

>> host: patrick come you read in your book that in many ways we're missing backward on the issue of climate change. can you talk about that? gets out in many ways, climate research is a real bright spot in the area, but as we learn more about the climate, and the information that it becomes more and more vulnerable to political forces that change the way about climate change. case in point, the intergovernmental panel on climate change. so this is an enormous body that takes research from all around the world and comes up with an assessment that we used to talk about the climate and no one is happy about it over at all. the climate scientists are happy

about it because they feel their findings were squished and massaged into a consensus sign. the business is never too happy about it. is always terrible bad news that we are on track to realize a temperature rise at the year 2100, which is god-awful. the public has different feelings about climate change depending on things like how well we are doing economically. so in periods where there is robust economic growth, we are much more likely to favor what we see as luxury policies whereas during the 2008 recession beside the push back away from climate change regulation. so we're kind of moving back on climate change. there is also the data -- a lot of the data were used to make climate change assessment comes from satellite.

postcode and from other countries. >> guest: increasingly from other countries. so we have satellite and 13 of these will be out of operation -- half of our 13 satellites will be out of operation in 2016 and we are pleased to bring some more online in 2017. there is this great big gap that we are not contributing nearly as much weather data and other countries are beginning to increase the amount of data collection they are able to bring to the question of what type thing and this has the potential to become politicized. we talk about climate change in the future, researchers will do an international array of data and that lends itself a think if you look at the way the house of representatives works right now for the u.s. chamber of commerce lenses l2 a lot of resistance that could increase. so even though we actually know

more about the climate and the potential to stave off the worst effects of climate change are also increasing the possibility of more climate data being politicized. >> host: what you mean when you save politicized? ways that may not necessarily be in the best interest of the public? >> guest: yes, exactly. we have a lot of different interests needed. to steer climate policy and the bottom line is that it's never going -- regardless of what you hear from people who are big into the green business movement, it is never cheaper or more profitable to fix their addiction and it will be to continue forever. it is just a continuing on our current path of co2 creation right now spells disaster for us. and so, what i think you are

going to see this as we become more and more aware of how the climate is inching and as more and more international data feed into that understanding, there is an exhaustion point of the public. >> host: intrinsics come in your vision for how things work ideally, how could we address that problem? >> guest: dissolution of one of the more interesting solution i've found comes from the private doctor. as a business called climate core and what they do is they take this huge abundance of data, but instead of outputting the international -- intergovernmental panel on climate change, the report says by the way, and death in the year 2100. instead, what it does is it outputs to farmers a particular score of how much the weather is going to cost them. as long as they have an insurance contract with climate corp., claim the court issues a

check before anybody else. >> host: farmers can get reimbursed before they suffer. >> guest: ray, farmer serving verse on the basis of the climate changes would do with these models, with this data. the checks are issued automatically. just a great big machine knows how much money you are about to lose because of the weather. >> host: efficient. >> guest: it is efficient. climate data something we think of now. part of the recent climate data is because it's not something a lot of folks actually get. it is not something that you run by continuous experiments. there are some high school textbook experiments that sort of shows the greenhouse effect is, but you can't run experiments on the climate. this speaks to part of the reason why the meteorologist community isn't fully convinced

that man-made climate change is happening because they consider themselves experts in that they don't see the data for computers or be part of the intergovernmental panel on climate change could miss as they are resistant notion. we feel climate that is sent and that a tiny group of pointy-headed academics comes up with to mess with all of us. it is so easily exploitable by folks in congress. a future where we understand what the weather -- the future weather and our actions mean to and not create a sense of connection to the broader climate debate is actually personal and that is what is i think going to change. >> host: theoretically come ideas like climate corporations, what you describe is wonderful. i have to mention monsanto recently about that. this is a company that markets drought tolerant seeds to

farmers cannot seem to tolerates aluminum in the soil. how do we deal with the fact that while on one hand it to be moving away from politics that you've identified to have creative programs like that, when you have corporations that have their bottom line adventures, how do we guard against that? i am guessing you are going to say get more information now, how poor people involved. >> host: i think a more information now creates -- this month into is now the world largest insurer for firing, for agriculture, this leads to a market that is right for innovation. it should be pointed out the nets would've mixed feelings monsanto. on one hand i am not terribly freaked out by the idea of creating genetically novel strains of crops that can persist integrations.

i am opposed to some of the business practices. a lot of business practices where they lay on farmers for things like copyright infringement comes during beats and stuff like this. these practices they think are kind of gross. so this does her to speak to the point. what if you are a farmer and you are having legal dispute and you also need to use the insurance project because it best one out there. all i can offer reciting that this is a market that is now for the climate corp. has done fantastic work and need not be necessarily the only insurance corporation that is able to give out checks on the basis of future weather laws. we are looking at a bunch of different bottles and a lot of us suffer the potential that exists to understand regardless of how we feel about monsanto and not corporation. the potential exists to understand what the weather is

going to cost a person on an individual basis. that is a good thing broadly speaking that will connect us with the debate and the fact that we can talk about whether or not monsanto should be the only player in town with access to outside information is also a good thing, even though it doesn't necessarily feel like it. >> host: i want to get back to the subject of data aggregation, but with a different angle. you talk about wal-mart and other retailers and how they triangulate our buying habits and how verizon and at&t factor into that. what i found interesting is how we as individuals actually influence others. our friends, our communities. are we all unwittingly, perhaps in some cases advertising to our friends and colleagues when we use social media such as facebook, twitter? >> guest: a little bit less on

twitter. there's a big push on facebook to understand the dynamic you just described. it used to be a long time ago people would have interactions and influence one another to buy something, not by something and all of the data on the influence was there's no way to collect it because were just regular human is walking around. our exchanges slowed to a blithering nonsense every conversation before a. now we increasingly have these exchanges in the media wire all of that information can be collect and analyze enhanced in both areas they push at face. they have a data science team that have for several years taken a look at interactions they can be and what they mean. and so yes, from a technological good -- technological and simple mathematical truth. it is possible to understand

looking at people's interactions on face the, which are good ones, but it could proxy for interactions in the real world, who influences whom among your company you and your friends come to you and people you are way, who exhausts whom -- >> host: what do you mean by that? >> guest: we've all got that one friend on facebook that those have nothing to brag bratty things about them elves. i am not sure exactly which friend of mine that is, but i think all of my friends probably think it means. it is sort of like a michael scott thing. if you go to work and don't know anyone who's michael scott, then you're the michael scott. my friend who is a bratty things about themselves all the time. if i try to influence -- if you are my friend facebook, i'm sorry. so if i check to influence my friends to buy one thing, i probably would be sort of a loser and someone would say it's

because you're so bratty all the time. >> host: it is sort of like an advertiser that saturate the market too much so it has the reverse effect. >> guest: exactly. so it is possible now to its third but i'm sort of a poor influencer on my friend decision. it's possible to see exactly who's going to influence. they spoke, just looking at exchanges, divorced from little content of the conversation, whether or not two people are about to enter into a relationship, their communication patterns increase in a particular way. once they are in a relationship among their communication patterns upon another drop-off because they know not to communicate anymore. >> host: there is a thing called clouds, which measures according to them .5 to 100 how great an influence there you are. >> guest: right, on the broader public. i also liked muesli. so did the same thing.

that is how good an influence you are to everybody through the lens of the internet. what is amazing to me about what these are consuming as they are going to understand it somebody i'd maybe have pursed mouth feeling towards that i've never expressed with anybody, you can influence me to do something that i didn't expect i could be coerced into doing. >> host: give an example. >> guest: what if i have a crush on somebody and facebook knows. the next thing you know, it turns out i've had a bunch of people are said to me this is actually happening. all it is is facebook founders ending and taken a look at which one of your friends is the best person to you. it's really easy. we trust familiarity much more than celebrities. this is the future of advertising where the decisions

your friend take show up in your phone trying to influence you. there is a way to control that. the first step is to be aware of it and that is part of to to do with this book. >> host: i think we are use to it becoming used to corporation using predictive analytics. so it sounds as though you are suggesting that we are going to recoup via shift to having consumers, friends being able to calculate their own metrics. >> host: yes. the simple mask it published. most of it is based on some sort of phasing in france. it is derived from the work in a way for understanding probability the base is a rapidly incoming new information. the formula is so shows that in a lot of different ways. unto itself it is not that hard. this is really the mathematical

sort of thinking, that manacle preset that guides all of this to his understanding how it is changing as new information and we actually have much more control than we ever realized. yes, you can absolutely begin to understand. and it's true, face the doesn't necessarily want you to know how much tenuous and enough this, but it's not hard to download an app that will tell you that. and it's a lot of time. facebook continues to become important metric in which his time and right. we think of it being this old hat that used to communicate most of his relatives and not much with friends, but it leads in time outside because we read articles there we are sharing a lot of information at the variety of information. so there's nothing to stop us from understanding exactly how we are using that letter. even if they spoke doesn't give

us the opportunity, and is still an opportunity out there. here's how i use facebook. here's to influence the unfazed. here's how i influence others and that begins to change behavior and its accelerating keep going. >> host: i want to talk about prime prediction. use the digital information can be used to help us live more healthily as we've discussed, avoiding convenience in danger. i know in many cities across the country, we are using predict of technologies such as tax fodder which can triangulate whether a gunshot has been fired. can you give me an example and one of the ones that has been highly criticized his surveillance drones of technology that you can better to evasive in the cranfield. >> host: i don't think that technologies by themselves are capable of invading. drones are a good example. by the end of 2015, because the

federal order, a bunch of different police departments have to figure out how to integrate drug allergy into their practices. this totally great ways to do it, ways that keep police officers face, that expands situational awareness in a way that does infringe and there's lots of ways you can then, you know, drones up to look into people's windows and do terrible things. the technology by itself is the way it's been. what it does is amplifies what people were going to do anyway. so that's another reason i think it is really important to be having this commerce edition is because the capabilities of wind force than to enforce law are about to go up a lot. how excited are we about all the laws were capable of enforcing? broadly speaking, we want people

that are public servants to be able to do their job much better, much more efficiently. we all actually want that, at least some paper. so that's progress. online, that they of his progress. now i have to follow that up a conversation about how interesting are we really in enforcing marijuana laws. if we had the opportunity to enforce all the better. immigration laws. we haven't had the commerce issued yet. broadly speaking, police departments working much better and more efficiently, that is undeniably one. so in terms of whether or not it can be invasive, again, i would point out the more data you have, the less likely you are to have false positives. but there's a good case examples and from cautionary tales. in terms of predictive policing, one cautionary tale of the city

of new york, which did recognize tremendous drops in crime through the use of religious old paper and pen statistical is to crime, but also got into a lot of trouble he borne out now on the court with zero-tolerance tactics. so you don't want to pay her your predictive capabilities attacked the end the potential is there. that's a decision somebody makes in the police department. an alternative is the way memphis these predictive policing. it's a case that very few people know about. the difference is this. memphis employed police in this way. the sociologist went with the head of police to different neighborhoods and told them this is what we are looking on. this is what police are telling us that this is how we would like to be involved in your community. they actually gave away in many ways the element of surprise to

continually have conversations with the public in the community about here is what you can do with this new capability. so that program hasn't had nearly the same amount of sense since her legal problems you've seen in new york. totally which use predictive policing and totally bad way and i think we will see worse case examples because they have a completely different decision-making mechanism in place when they think about what policing is. the police there have a different mandate and they are also going to be the number one surveillance market in the world. >> host: if you had to compare the united states in terms of our policy making vis-à-vis how we are using tech knowledge he, how do we rank? >> guest: this is a good question. how do we rank in terms of how surveilled we are? >> guest: or how much the

example you mentioned in memphis where we get community buying and in so we are pairing things with tom policies that don't violate individuals of the liberties. do you think we are getting off to a good start in that way? ice yearbook will add a lot towards hope only encouraging more pollution in the policymaking arena. >> host: i'd had the a lot of reasons to be take. this 2008 on prohibits discrimination of the health insurance discrimination towards people of genetic information. that is key. that is precedent. everybody needs to learn that, demand more. everybody needs to write a first and foremost understand that the information you create is going to ask and allow it and once you at knowledge to comment then you

also premieres of up to the possibility of using that much better. having said that, i am alarmed by the fact we are about to increase the capability public local police departments to enforce bylaws and we haven't had a big discussion. so this is something that gives me a lot of pause because there is a lot of dysfunction right now in the way we address a lot of these sort of various and full municipal issues and also on this became sort of national issues. this is part of the reason why we feel right now as though we give away information director faces all the time in a language we cannot hear. so actually, the revelations that have come out from june of 2013 on about the nsa, the "washington post" and other outlet while they've been

disturbing, i think ultimately the regulatory process speaks directly to what i'm talking about when you have the data to test it out in the time to have the conversation right now. like i said, i am hopeful it will be constructive. >> host: we only have a few minutes left. i know you interviewed a range of people. scientists, hackers, police. what surprises did you encounter during this process? >> guest: i interviewed a lot of different people. i interview some great folks in new york. even one guy that was trying to put answers in the new york city sewer system that we can predict when that will be sewer overflows and really doing a job when he tried to do it on behalf of the city got a little trouble for it. i talked to the guy that created the judgment powers. enter name, also at great a.i. luminary.

>> host: aip and artificial intelligence. >> guest: ray kurzweil is an interesting example of somebody that was able to do all of this record-keeping on how far earlier than the rest of this because he was really good at computers i have. this is an example of something that was seen as a strange sort of behavior woodworkers was doing detailed personal record-keeping and now something that we can all do. to take a shot that i had was when i was too fast times, not a former chief intelligence officer for the cia get on stage and talk a little bit about how scared he was at the potential government abuse and that data because the back i is end, nobody is. it showed me really no one is in charge of the fact that we now create information and everything to do. we cannot elution you're in

charge of the data is temporary. eventually that information is passed to all of us did not change as everyone decision process. >> host: i want to and just briefly talking about future is in general because you are a futurist and i wasn't aware, but a lot of large corporations use future is a vote in. >> guest: they do. i consider myself more of a journalist who writes about the future and i know futurists. but at the same time, i think everyone should call themselves a futurist, regardless of whether or not you are a consultant. the organization i work for a long time in the future is not in, really neutral clearinghouse about the future. if you have an idea about the future, call yourself a futurist. having said that, what is remarkable right now is a few years ago there was this and

they are is thriving market for people who seem to have a little bit of an advantage when they talk about the future and the promise of professional corporate future is. i know some that are various mark, minister of silly terrible. there's an abundance of them and they can fulfill a really important role. but there is no human bean that has special access to the future. one of the remarkable things that i've seen in putting this editorial project is we all, through this data and how available it is, have the potential to access the future as an idea and a completely new way. so i kind of, and this may anger some folks that i know, i see that era of the flashy corporate futurist brought to a quick close. having said that, when it done correctly, the only thing a corporate futurist can do really

well is enable whomever they are seeking to to launch towards opportunities before it is too late. and that is all i wanted to do with this book is remind people however inhibited you might feel, and the inevitable fact is you are creating much more information in the year 2020 than you do today. there's a lot of opportunity there. embrace the opportunity and when that date arrives, you'll know at the very least in the great entrance of history you made the right decision. >> host: patrick tucker, you have given us hope for the future of the really book to add to the many others that are commenting on big data. immunex much. >> host: thank you for having me.

>> host: that was "after words," in which authors of the latest nonfiction books are interviewed by journalists and the public policymakers, legislators and others familiar with the material. "after words" airs every week and i'm tv at 10:00 p.m. on saturday, 12:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on sunday at 12:00 a.m. on the day. you can also watch afterwards online. go to booktv.org and click on "after words" in the series and topic list on the right end of the page

>> do find it curious that asset didn't script defines? >> guest: and retrospect it might have pushed that. but the late julian scherrer, through the nasa relations with the out at groton anyway was

absolutely adamant to headquarters never put words in their mouth and their people, not just astronaut. they made it known sort of what the party line was, what the monster position once. beyond that, not to my knowledge controlled the statement -- public statement of others in certainly they tasted. >> here's a look at luxman published this week:

the former gang her turn finalist for the book circle award is the author of three not rich in books, including always running in his 2011 release that caused that. >> host: author luis jay rodriguez, where are we? >> guest: we are at the cultural center and bookstore anselmo, california. >> host: what is this